In 1869 John Stuart Mill published what was to be his last major political work, The Subjection of Women. Although drafted in 1861, Mill waited until he had left a failed public office career to publish it. A full book on the state of women's rights in England, and the need to change them, the introduction to the book serves as a survey of Mill's argument. His argument moves through many different modes, beginning first as a plea to logic, before continuing through moral, social, and economic reasons. Finally, Mill moves back to logic to show the inherent flaw in the argument for Victoria marriage laws.
Although appearing as the only author, Mill credits his deceased wife, Harriet Taylor Mill, as having helped him write it (Harris). Harriet was a frequent collaborator with Mill and they had been working together since the 1830's. Mill frequently stated, says Harris, that Harriet would be an important public figure if she had been born in a time where women have more freedom. Mill also credits her with educating him on women's rights and the unfairness built into the British common law. Although Mill is reported widely as saying these things, there is no material proof for his claims. As it stands, Harriet was never given co-authorship of any of Mill's works, and never published anything beyond a few letters and one essay (Robson). As well, considering that Harriet had passed away in 1858, a full three years before the first draft of The Subjection of Women, the idea that she had written part of it is almost impossible.
The introduction to The Subjection of Women begins by stating how the current laws in place are political oddities. Mill introduces his argument by stating that “the legal subordination of one sex to the other – is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement” (309). Mill then outlines how the current system “rests upon theory only” (310), that there is no historical record of an equal society being attempted. In fact, Mill contends, the current system is not the “result of deliberation, or forethought” (310), but simply a result of law of the strongest that left every woman in “bondage to some man” (310). Mill describes the law of the strongest as any society that lets whatever category which has more power, whether it be the rich or, more generally, men, have absolute control over everyone else (310).
Using this as a basis, Mill then moves to compare Victorian marriage laws to slavery, which had recently been abolished in the United States and had not been a part of England since the earlier half of the century. However, he positions marriage laws as being worse than slavery because, not only does it still exist, but it is “not confined to a limited class, but common to the whole male sex” (312). Thus, as every women is the subject and every man the master, it affects all of Victorian society, unlike slavery laws which only affected those who were slaves and those who owned slaves. Mill takes the comparison further, though, saying that the arguments used against changing the laws are the same used as slave owners, that both groups “cling to the theories that justify their passions and [legitimize] their personal interests” (312).
Mill then begins to use flattery to convince his readers, describing how the spirit of the laws go against England's high culture. He points towards England's great power on the world stage and links it to the Queen Victoria's position as a ruler. However, he explains that to one unused to rule by a woman, even this would seem “so unnatural as to be almost incredible” (312). Mill uses this to argue that “unnatural generally means only uncustomary” (312), linking it back to his beginning point on unproven systems. The flattery continues as Mill talks about how England, at this point, is being hindered in progress by suppressing women. The very laws, to Mill, goes against the “character of the modern world” (312), positioning them as relics, as out of place as if a “temple of [Zeus] occupied the site of St. Paul's” (315).
This is where Mill then turns to a Utilitarian argument. By suppressing women, Mill believes England is denying itself not only a strong workforce and half of its own brain power, but also knowledge of the female sex. Knowledge of women “is wretchedly imperect and superficial, and always will be so, until women themselves have told all that they have to tell” (318), and to Mill, a Utilitarian himself, this is one of the worst realities.
As the introduction nears its end, Mill returns back to the question of logic, and how the laws themselves are illogical. He poses a question, that if women are naturally caregivers, why must we have laws that force them to do that? In answer, Mill positions that the true opinion is not that women are natural caregivers, but “that the alleged natural vocation of women was... the most repugnant to their nature; insomuch that if they [were] free to do anything else... there will not be enough of them who will be willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them.” (318-19)
In closing the chapter, Mill takes the argument for Victoria marriage laws to its extreme: if women have only one natural vocation, than any training in literacy and thinking, any “[relaxing of] the chain on the minds of women, has been a mistake” (319), that it is “wrong to bring women up with any acquirements but those of an odalisque, or of a domestic servant” (319).
Mill's work on The Subjection of Women had a mixed reaction when it came out. Aimed most likely at the middle class, and men specifically, having it published as a book as opposed to a newspaper would have alienated the working class. Of all Mill's work, it was the least financially successful, actually resulting in him losing money, Harris notes. Contemporary reviews, such as the one published on June 19, 1869 in The Athenæum, argued against the idea of giving women the vote or letting them pursue anything outside marriage (819). However, at least in The Athenæum, there was support shown for the relaxing of marriage laws (820).
The Subjection of Women did prove to be popular outside England, as it was pirated heavily across Europe and was translated and sold around the world (Harris). Looking back, it is often hailed as a landmark in feminist thought, Botting explains, giving “rise to philosophical and political responses beyond Western Europe” (466).
Despite no textual link, it would be interesting to see how much of the philosophy is reflected in the little we have of Harriet Taylor Mill's own writing, which comes almost thirty years before.
LW/Engl387/Fall2014/UVic
Works Cited
Botting, Eileen Hunt, and Sean Kronewitter. “Westernization and Women’s Rights Non-Western European Responses to Mill’s Subjection of Women, 1869-1908.” Political Theory 40.4 (2012): 466–496. ptx.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
Harris, Jose. “Mill, John Stuart” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004. 4 Nov. 2014
Mill, John Stuart. “The Subjection of Women: Chapter 1.” The Broadview Anthology of Victorian Prose 1932-1901. Ed. Mary Elizabeth Leighton and Lisa Surridge. Peterborough: Broadview, 2012. 309-19. Print
Robson, Ann P.. “Mill, Harriet Taylor” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004. 4 Nov. 2014.
Although appearing as the only author, Mill credits his deceased wife, Harriet Taylor Mill, as having helped him write it (Harris). Harriet was a frequent collaborator with Mill and they had been working together since the 1830's. Mill frequently stated, says Harris, that Harriet would be an important public figure if she had been born in a time where women have more freedom. Mill also credits her with educating him on women's rights and the unfairness built into the British common law. Although Mill is reported widely as saying these things, there is no material proof for his claims. As it stands, Harriet was never given co-authorship of any of Mill's works, and never published anything beyond a few letters and one essay (Robson). As well, considering that Harriet had passed away in 1858, a full three years before the first draft of The Subjection of Women, the idea that she had written part of it is almost impossible.
The introduction to The Subjection of Women begins by stating how the current laws in place are political oddities. Mill introduces his argument by stating that “the legal subordination of one sex to the other – is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement” (309). Mill then outlines how the current system “rests upon theory only” (310), that there is no historical record of an equal society being attempted. In fact, Mill contends, the current system is not the “result of deliberation, or forethought” (310), but simply a result of law of the strongest that left every woman in “bondage to some man” (310). Mill describes the law of the strongest as any society that lets whatever category which has more power, whether it be the rich or, more generally, men, have absolute control over everyone else (310).
Using this as a basis, Mill then moves to compare Victorian marriage laws to slavery, which had recently been abolished in the United States and had not been a part of England since the earlier half of the century. However, he positions marriage laws as being worse than slavery because, not only does it still exist, but it is “not confined to a limited class, but common to the whole male sex” (312). Thus, as every women is the subject and every man the master, it affects all of Victorian society, unlike slavery laws which only affected those who were slaves and those who owned slaves. Mill takes the comparison further, though, saying that the arguments used against changing the laws are the same used as slave owners, that both groups “cling to the theories that justify their passions and [legitimize] their personal interests” (312).
Mill then begins to use flattery to convince his readers, describing how the spirit of the laws go against England's high culture. He points towards England's great power on the world stage and links it to the Queen Victoria's position as a ruler. However, he explains that to one unused to rule by a woman, even this would seem “so unnatural as to be almost incredible” (312). Mill uses this to argue that “unnatural generally means only uncustomary” (312), linking it back to his beginning point on unproven systems. The flattery continues as Mill talks about how England, at this point, is being hindered in progress by suppressing women. The very laws, to Mill, goes against the “character of the modern world” (312), positioning them as relics, as out of place as if a “temple of [Zeus] occupied the site of St. Paul's” (315).
This is where Mill then turns to a Utilitarian argument. By suppressing women, Mill believes England is denying itself not only a strong workforce and half of its own brain power, but also knowledge of the female sex. Knowledge of women “is wretchedly imperect and superficial, and always will be so, until women themselves have told all that they have to tell” (318), and to Mill, a Utilitarian himself, this is one of the worst realities.
As the introduction nears its end, Mill returns back to the question of logic, and how the laws themselves are illogical. He poses a question, that if women are naturally caregivers, why must we have laws that force them to do that? In answer, Mill positions that the true opinion is not that women are natural caregivers, but “that the alleged natural vocation of women was... the most repugnant to their nature; insomuch that if they [were] free to do anything else... there will not be enough of them who will be willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them.” (318-19)
In closing the chapter, Mill takes the argument for Victoria marriage laws to its extreme: if women have only one natural vocation, than any training in literacy and thinking, any “[relaxing of] the chain on the minds of women, has been a mistake” (319), that it is “wrong to bring women up with any acquirements but those of an odalisque, or of a domestic servant” (319).
Mill's work on The Subjection of Women had a mixed reaction when it came out. Aimed most likely at the middle class, and men specifically, having it published as a book as opposed to a newspaper would have alienated the working class. Of all Mill's work, it was the least financially successful, actually resulting in him losing money, Harris notes. Contemporary reviews, such as the one published on June 19, 1869 in The Athenæum, argued against the idea of giving women the vote or letting them pursue anything outside marriage (819). However, at least in The Athenæum, there was support shown for the relaxing of marriage laws (820).
The Subjection of Women did prove to be popular outside England, as it was pirated heavily across Europe and was translated and sold around the world (Harris). Looking back, it is often hailed as a landmark in feminist thought, Botting explains, giving “rise to philosophical and political responses beyond Western Europe” (466).
Despite no textual link, it would be interesting to see how much of the philosophy is reflected in the little we have of Harriet Taylor Mill's own writing, which comes almost thirty years before.
LW/Engl387/Fall2014/UVic
Works Cited
Botting, Eileen Hunt, and Sean Kronewitter. “Westernization and Women’s Rights Non-Western European Responses to Mill’s Subjection of Women, 1869-1908.” Political Theory 40.4 (2012): 466–496. ptx.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
Harris, Jose. “Mill, John Stuart” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004. 4 Nov. 2014
Mill, John Stuart. “The Subjection of Women: Chapter 1.” The Broadview Anthology of Victorian Prose 1932-1901. Ed. Mary Elizabeth Leighton and Lisa Surridge. Peterborough: Broadview, 2012. 309-19. Print
Robson, Ann P.. “Mill, Harriet Taylor” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004. 4 Nov. 2014.